SEQUIM — Bob Spinks is in danger of losing $5,000 for what the city says are some ill-chosen words.
Spinks, whose last day as Sequim police chief was July 2, was awarded a severance package of more than $31,000 on April 14 that includes a settlement-agreement requirement that neither he nor the city “disparage” the other.
If that occurs, the disparager would pay the disparaged $5,000, according to the agreement.
The settlement agreement says neither Spinks “nor any agent acting for him will disparage the city of Sequim or its officers or agents.”
The city is taking issue with Spinks, who served as the city’s police chief for five years, for subsequently being “outwardly critical” of recent City Council decisions and City Manager Steve Burkett, City Attorney Craig Ritchie told Spinks in a two-page July 7 letter.
“These appear to be direct breaches of your signed agreement not to disparage the City of Sequim or its officers or agents,” Ritchie said in the letter.
Ritchie winds up the letter by asking Spinks to accept “dispute resolution,” though Spinks had not responded as of Tuesday afternoon, Ritchie said Tuesday.
“I do expect to hear from him,” Ritchie said.
Neither Spinks nor Burkett returned phone calls requesting comment Tuesday afternoon.
Ritchie’s letter to Spinks “is not a nastygram,” the city attorney said.
“As you well know, Sequim is a small town, and word travels fast,” Ritchie said in the letter.
“The city has been hearing words attributed to you to the effect that the city manager acted wrongly in negotiating the settlement agreement with you, that you were forced to resign for no good reason, and further, that you were forced to resign due to the wishes of a City Council member,” Ritchie continued.
“Your statement to councilperson Bill Huizinga about alleged improper council member influence on the city manager’s decision on your employment was, in substance, repeated during your job interview with Pullman.”
Huizinga was not available for comment early Tuesday evening.
Spinks unsuccessfully applied for the job of police chief of Pullman, as well as for chief positions in West Richland and Lebanon, Ore.
Critical of city officials
Ritchie also said that in a prepared statement to the Peninsula Daily News reported July 7, Spinks was critical of the city for creating a part-time marketing and communications manager position with salary and benefits of up to $60,000 annually.
In addition, Spinks criticized “alleged increased costs since the new city manager arrived,” Ritchie said, referring to Burkett.
Burkett, who has said that the two have differences in style and approach, referred to Spinks as “bombastic,” before asking him in March to resign.
Burkett then acquired from the City Council approval of a 10 percent higher salary range for the new police chief, whomever that might be.
The post is being advertised, among other places, on the city’s website, www.ci.Sequim.wa.us, with a pay range of $80,000 to $106,000 per year with “an excellent benefits package.”
Spinks’ salary was $86,299 plus benefits.
Spinks also was critical of what he viewed as high turnover at city hall.
“[The] additional expense, not to mention the various severance, time-off payouts, recruiting and other costs [of] such a high turnover in staff” will mean significant expenses for Sequim, Spinks said in his statement earlier this month.
Before Spinks received Ritchie’s letter, but after Ritchie mailed it, Spinks asked to meet him at Adagio Bean & Leaf coffee shop in Sequim, Ritchie said Tuesday.
Ritchie said he told Spinks to expect the letter.
Spinks disparaged?
But it was Spinks who suggested “there was disparagement going on, of him by the city,” Ritchie said.
Burkett has publicly commented little on Spinks since his departure, defending three layoffs and a resignation as the city wrestles with the recession and less development activity.
The settlement agreement indicates disparagement by either Spinks or the city may be hard to prove.
“Because proof of actual damages for violations of this provision may be difficult, it is agreed between the parties that the amount of $5,000 will be the damages that shall be paid to the party being disparaged by the party doing the disparagement,” the agreement says.
According to www.merriam-webster.com to disparage means to “degrade” or “speak slightingly about.”
“I believe that both you and the city agree that, generally, release of factual information does not constitute disparagement,” Ritchie told Spinks in the July 7 letter.
“Perhaps the dispute resolution proceedings could discuss what factual information is non-disparaging and what factual information may be disseminated by either or both parties and possible agreed remedies for past noncompliance.”
________
Senior Staff Writer Paul Gottlieb can be reached at 360-417-3536 or at paul.gottlieb@peninsuladailynews.com.
